RAGHUNATHJEE Vs. LEELAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1998/42 of 1995 (D. J.) by 5th Additional District Judge, Gaya, setting aside the judgment passed by Ist Subordinate, Judge, Gaya in Title Suit No. 59 of 1976.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the plaintiff -appellant is that Goalpathal Thakurbari situated at Mohalla Goalpathal Gaya is an ancient Thakurbari in which Raghunathjee and other deities are installed. The said Thakurbari is the principal Thakurbari having several other subordinate Thakurbari, including the Gopinath Thakurbari (defendant) within its control and supervision. The original defendant Shyam Sundar Pujari was appointed as Pujari for the said Gopinath Thakurbari on a fixed salary for day to day management of the properties attached thereto by the Mahanth of Goalpathal Thakurbari, who has every right to terminate the services of the defendant. The said Pujari during his service developed immoral character with the tenant associates of the Thakurbari and also misappropriated the fund of the temple, which compelled the plaintiff to terminate the service of the defendant, who was asked to vacate the temple premises and hand over the charge of all the properties,. The defendant challenged the authority of the plaintiff claiming himself as Mahanth of independent Gopinath Thakurbari. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Gopinath Thakurbari and the properties attached thereto belong to Goalpathal Thakurbari and the defendant be directed to hand over the charge to the plaintiff and vacate the premises of Gopinath Thakurbari.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court found that Gopinath Thakurbari belongs to the plaintiff -GoaIpathaI Thakurbari and the defendant has no right, title and interest in the said Thakurbari and is simply a Pujari and has been directed to hand over the charge to the plaintiff vacating the temple premises. The trial court disbelieved the story that Amrit Lal was founder of Gopinath Thakurbari, and, thus, decreed the suit. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court preferred appeal and the appellate court on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence allowed the appeal by interfering with respect to point nos. lII & IV only and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari and the plaintiff has got no right, title and interest in Gopinath Thakurbari and its property attached thereto and he further found that the status of the original defendant Shyam Sundar Pujari is not more than a Pujari.